ForHousing Limited (202334200)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334200

ForHousing Limited

8 September 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. He has lived there since September 2021 with his wife. The landlord has told us it is aware the resident has several vulnerabilities including severe respiratory conditions.
In July 2023 the resident reported the bedrooms of the property had water staining on the walls. The landlord attended on 9 July 2023 and recommended the walls were treated. The resident refused the repairs.
On 13 October 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. He said he was unhappy with the way the landlord was dealing with his reports of damp and mould.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 27 October 2023. It said 2 damp inspections had been carried out and both concluded the air flow needed to be improved and there was no damp in the property. It committed to instructing a further, independent survey to reassure the resident.
On 7 November 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 23 November 2023. It said the independent survey concluded there was no damp in the property and the issue was high humidity. The landlord committed to completing the works recommended in the survey.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In his correspondence with us, the resident has raised other related matters that occurred after those subject to this complaint. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to those matters which were responded to by the landlord and completed its internal complaints procedure on 23 November 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before we become involved.
The resident has informed us how the issues have impacted his health. Where we find failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, complaints about personal injury are better dealt with by the courts because they will often have the benefit of an independent medical expert who can give evidence on the diagnosis, prognosis and cause of any injury. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or personal injury.

Damp and mould

On or before 9 July 2023 the resident reported water staining on the walls in both bedrooms. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 9 July 2023 and recommended a mould treatment. The resident refused to allow the work to be carried out.
The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out the repair responsibilities for the property. It states the landlord is responsible for the structure of the property. The resident is responsible for granting access to the property in order for the landlord to complete any necessary repairs.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it takes a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. Its website states it will complete an inspection within 10 days of receiving a report and aims to complete any necessary repairs within 40 days. While the date of the resident’s report is unclear from the documentation provided, it is not disputed the landlord completed the inspection in line with its policy.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 4 September 2023 regarding the water stain on the walls. The landlord completed a damp inspection 3 days later in line with its policy. It recorded there was no damp present but noted high levels of humidity.
The landlord attended the property again on 12 September 2023 to treat the walls. The resident refused the works.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 September 2023. He said he was unable to be near the “toxic paint” that it planned to use on the walls. He also explained he was unable to go into temporary accommodation due to his medical conditions, and he had since discovered more mould in the bedroom. The resident submitted medical evidence to the landlord on 22 September 2023 which confirmed his medical conditions.
The evidence shows during this time the resident raised concerns about the findings of the previous inspection. He told the landlord the operative who attended in July had mentioned the potential presence of rising damp because the wallpaper in the bedroom had started to peel back
The landlord attempted to carry out a further inspection of the property on 2 October 2023, which was refused by the resident. The inspection was carried out on 10 October 2023. On the same day, 2 members of the landlord’s management team attended the property to view the effected area. The records of both visits confirmed there was no damp present within the property and high humidity was causing the mould growth. It was noted the extractor fans had been switched off, reducing the ventilation in the property. The resident was given advice on how to increase ventilation in the property until the damp inspection recommendations had been received.
On 13 October 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. He said:
1. He was “sick of being lied to” as he had been told during the first visit the issue was rising damp.
2. His personal belongings, including his headboard, had been ruined by the mould.
3. He was concerned of the impact on his health, both physically and mentally.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 27 October 2023. It apologised the resident had cause to raise a complaint and said:
1. To address the resident’s concerns about rising damp it had completed further inspections of the property.
2. Both the damp inspection and the manager’s visit confirmed there was no damp present, but high humidity had contributed to the mould growth.
3. It committed to completing the works identified in the mould inspection, which included:
  1. Installing new air vents in the bedrooms.
  2. Installing trickle vents to windows where required.
4. It had also provided advice on how the resident could reduce humidity in his home.
5. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the impact anti-mould paint could have on his health and was looking at alternative solutions.
6. It had arranged a specialist damp survey to reassure the resident of its findings and would commit to any further works the survey identified.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was thorough and reasonably addressed each aspect of the complaint. The response explained the actions it had taken and would continue to take to support the resident. The results from its inspections carried out in October were consistent. It was therefore reasonable for it to rely on those findings to inform the extent of its response. The evidence shows the landlord went beyond what it was obligated to do and arranged for a third inspection to be completed.
The specialist damp inspection was carried out on 27 October 2023. The inspection report stated there was no defects to the external wall and no signs of damp. The report recommended:
1. Furniture was moved away from the wall to allow air to circulate behind.
2. A heating engineer attended to determine whether the bedroom radiator was an adequate size and working correctly.
3. The application of anti-condensation paint to affected areas.
4. Installing a silent running extractor fan in the bedroom.
The landlord attended the property on 31 October 2023 to complete the works set out in its own report dated 10 October 2023. Its notes indicated it would take steps to seal the bedroom doors to stop any dust or fumes being released into the rest of the property. The resident declined the works.
The landlord contacted the resident on 2 November 2023 to discuss the outstanding repairs. Its notes recorded the resident had been told his property was “riddled with damp” and he wanted to be moved. The landlord also noted it offered to clean the affected wall using nontoxic materials on a weekly basis. The resident declined the offer.
On 7 November 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He said he was unhappy with the outcome and was now sleeping in his lounge due to the damp in his bedroom.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 23 November 2023. It apologised the resident remained dissatisfied and said:
1. The independent damp survey report confirmed there was no damp present in the property but there were high levels humidity. It committed to completing the works identified in the report to improve the situation for the resident.
2. It offered the resident temporary accommodation while the work was carried out and for a period of 5 days beyond, in order to ensure the property was free from fumes and dust upon his return.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy allows for temporary accommodation to be arranged while damp repairs are being undertaken. The landlord’s offer to provide accommodation in these circumstances was in line with its policy. In addition, its offer to extend temporary accommodation following the works for a further 5 days in light of the resident’s specific health needs, was beyond what its policy obliged it to provide. Offering the additional provision in this manner was evidence of the landlord adopting a resolution focus in its attempts to make the situation better for the resident.
The resident told us he declined the landlord’s offer of temporary accommodation due to health concerns, namely he had no immune system. He said any new property would need to be deep cleaned to minimise the risks to his health.
Following the stage 2 response, the landlord attempted to carry out the recommended works. While the trickle vent to the window was installed, the resident refused the other works. As a gesture of goodwill, the landlord awarded the resident £505 to cover the cost of items that had been affected by the mould.
In summary, the evidence shows the landlord followed its policy when it received the resident’s report of damp and mould. When the resident queried the results of its inspections, the landlord instructed an independent damp survey to be carried out. This demonstrated the landlord had taken the resident’s complaint seriously and that it went beyond its policy requirements to provide reassurance to the resident by providing an independent survey.
The evidence shows the landlord was proactive in offering solutions to remedy the issues. This was while being acutely aware of the specific requirements and needs of the resident. These efforts were significant and thoughtful and placed the needs of the resident first and foremost.
When assessing the totality of the landlord’s response, it did not offer to deep clean the temporary accommodation to facilitate the works. Such an offer may have made it possible for the resident to move. However, the failure to make such an offer does not result in a negative finding for the landlord, as there was no requirement for it to do so, and there is no evidence the resident asked the landlord to consider this as a condition. The evidence shows the landlord acted reasonably in its attempts to facilitate the works recommended by its survey.
In these circumstances, it made an offer of £505 to the resident for items damaged by mould. This was a gesture of goodwill as opposed to redress for an admitted failing. This was a reasonable offer from the landlord and demonstrated it was trying to maintain the landlord / tenant relationship by going beyond what was expected of it. There was no evidence of wrongdoing by the landlord and this leads to a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord advise the resident on the options available to him to find a new property. The landlord should continue its proactive and resolution focus to try and make the situation better for the resident. This is with a view to seeking a way to facilitate the works identified at the property which are mindful to the resident’s specific needs.